Lucas88 wrote: ↑March 13th, 2023, 3:34 am
Tsar wrote: ↑March 13th, 2023, 12:16 am
I am not really in favor of abortion unless it's a truly last resort "Final Solution" to solve a very serious issue. The point is that if it's necessary to kill males so the surviving males can get a virgin female, then it's absolutely necessary to make the sacrifice.
We can let the babies be aborted as a Final Solution if it was absolutely necessary, or have a King Herod type Biblical cull later on, except the government will dispatch the army on a random date to gender-segregated schools or to homes in the middle of the night and kill all 40% of boys at age 11 which is before they really have serious hormones and a desire for a girlfriend. Those would be the only legitimate ways to fix the excess male problem if it wasn't solved with injections to solve it at the Spermatozoa level before conception of offspring. I agree that abortions is unnecessary and cruel, which is why I figure the slaughter of 40% of boys at age 11 is much better. It also gives the military the ability to prove absolute loyalty and obedience. If they can kill a child in their own nation, they can kill anyone else in the nation and they can easily kill foreigners and foreign children. Which is effective if there was ever an Imperial Roman style invasion and subsequent genocide of another nation or ethnic cleansing.
The way things exist, there are too many excess men in the world. There is not enough females even in the best case scenario from historic eras.
@Tsar
I do believe that your initial idea to increase the ratio of females through the manipulation of the father's sperm is a brilliant idea and a practical way to mitigate the incel problem;
however, I think that you're going off the rails when you talk about the supposed need for a King Herod type biblical cull or your desire to have 40% of all boys at age 11 massacred. I don't know whether you're just trolling or whether you're actually serious about what you're saying, but no, I don't agree with such heavy-handed and brutal tactics. Not only would it be supremely heinous but would also create resentment among the populace and increase opposition to whatever regime one might be trying to establish.
At the same time, I recognize the long-term unsustainability of an overpopulated world and the subsequent need to get the population down to a much more sustainable number. Nevertheless, I believe that it should be done gradually over generations and without recourse to heavy-handed measures like through a one-child policy in conjunction with social programs of voluntary sterilization for the child-free hedonistic types as well as for the R-selected hood rat types who would otherwise pump out 9 kids with 9 different baby mamas. Meanwhile, strong, fit and intelligent men should be encouraged to breed with hot and athletic females. Even though this all may sound rather eugenic, it should be presented as a noble campaign to overcome the problem of overpopulation and resource depletion and thereby ensure a sustainable future.
I personally don't advocate for genocide at all. Rather I support a much softer and largely voluntary series of policies for population reduction and then the institution of the kind of female ratio increase through medical technologies that you've proposed. I have no problem with killing true evildoers like the Jewish elite and their collaborators but I draw the line at innocent people.
But the above proposal is probably already a moot point. The current elite has already rolled out its potentially deadly vaccines and in some countries more than 80% of the population has more or less unquestioningly accepted them. Some people like @Cornfed speculate that there may be a mass die-off. If this is true, then the current elite will have culled a large part of the population in a rapid and totally brutal fashion - not something I agree with, by the way. Some people warned of the dangers. Unfortunately, many people were stupid enough to accept a shady vaccine that is being aggressively promoted by known psychopaths and elite criminals.
I'm just saying that given the options, scientific advancement and humane methods are preferable.
But as seen in dystopian films like Hunger Games and evidence of historical Roman brutality, during the initial construction of an empire, it would at least win. It's definitely evil but psychologically, it works to indoctrinate soldiers into brutality so they're more effective at imperialist wars and genocidal tactics because they crossed a line. The soldiers who follow through can be selected for missions requiring the skill set.
Obviously, I favor good methods but I do understand how evil methods would also work. Good and evil is largely about understanding human psychology. That's why I understand the playbook of the Elites and also understand history. People who ignore the evil options and their possibility will never truly able to imagine what the Elites could do. Instead of a King Herod type of event, they can be sent to Gulags, trained as Elite soldiers, and maybe released into other nations like vikings were. They can colonize, raid, overthrow other governments, kill mass numbers of the local men, and take foreign wives. Perfectly reasonable, especially of it's done in hostile nations. Aside from modern humanitarianism or to be completely, there's no genuine reason to attempt to be all good if good will not defeat the evil. Sometimes evil is necessary for good to triumph against a worse evil. True evil is also different than an evil committed to achieve good. It's like the concept of Yin Yang.
I just wrote the Herod type solution as an example of one option to show that given a choice of two evils, abortion of fetuses would probably be the lesser evil. Any resources, education, and emotional connection would be greatly used then wasted if years were spent with a child then a King Herod type thing happened. I do agree it's evil but it also does serve a legitimate psychological purpose as I mentioned, which while evil, does serve to make soldiers into more heartless soldiers willing to commit future atrocities by the fact that they would have committed one of the worst atrocities possible and have shown obedience. Much like the supposed myth about Nazi youth who were boys being ordered to kill their favorite pet, which I completely doubt since Hitler was into animal rights and did much to advance animal rights.
The only other real possibility is also evidenced in Roman History. If everyone of a national society is left alive, then other nations must be invaded. Wipeout all the males who are fight, capture all the girls and women necessary to provide a female to all men. Wipeout all the males that resist the army's plans. Even Jews are effectively using a variation of this to engage in usury and wipeout the nations of non-Jews.
The point that I am trying to make is that there are no completely good, ethical, and moral solutions to creating world peace. Someone, a group, or a category, or multiple categories will need to suffer so others don't. That suffering, blood, death, or reduction will always be able to end once the change had occurred.
Much like when I say if Jews were eliminated from Goyim nations, Israel didn't exist, and all Zionist Collaborators were executed. It's the only way to create a society capable of rapid advancement.
People cannot expect to defy nature and the natural order, yet still achieve their end vision. People cannot create a paradise and a great civilization without some blood, death, and destruction.
Only in a moral civilization where everyone will be guaranteed a good life, a male guaranteed at least one female, and without the Jewish/American/Anglo capitalism will people finally be able to live in peace and use mostly good methods. Until that happens, I completely believe that some "evil" methods are absolutely necessary. It's just which methods.
Sentimentality, morals, or subjective notions of goodness which don't matter if good ultimately loses? Lines must sometimes be crossed in a war.
Jahr Null or Year 0. Out with the old, in with the new.
Fīat jūstitia ruat cælum is a Latin legal phrase, meaning "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."
The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences.
I however don't care about the law, I only care about true justice.